Elian Gonzalez & Barack Obama

Barack Obama spoke truth to Cuban Americans today - it must have been refreshing for the audience to hear a leader who actually is intent on solving problems of freedom and proverty in Cuba and Latin America.  But Barack should beware Democrats and progressives whose ill disguised respect for Fidel Castro showed its hand during the Elian Gonzalez affair.  For example, Kennedy aide and super fixer Craig Greg squired Elian and his father around Washington prior to Elian's return to Cuba in 2000.  One could argue that Janet Reno, with her forceable capture of Elian, cost Al Gore the 2000 race, no less than did Ralph Nader's delusions.  The problem was the Clinton administration confused legalism with the rule of law and justice.  Elian's mother died for her son's freedom from Castro; and the Clinton Administration negated this sacrifice.  At a minimum the US government should have laid low and allowed family courts and the operation of family law, informed by treaty obligations, to go ahead so that the end game involved Florida State courts.  Fidel Castro was not known to respect human rights agreements that failed to serve his interests.  Freedom and sacrifice trump state power.    

•  ummm - my recollection is that Elian

  Gonzalez's mother spirited the boy out of Cuba without his father's consent or knowledge. And then a bunch of distant relatives in Cuba attempted to steal Elian from his father for what seemed like political reasons . .  .

  by alba on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:00:36 PM PDT

  •  Weren't they

    distant relatives in Cuba attempted to steal Elian

    the distant relatives in Florida?

    by Sassy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:03:31 PM PDT

    •  Some background...

      Wikipedia, FWIW:

      The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) released Elián to his paternal great uncle, Lázaro González. According to the Washington Post, Elián's father Juan Miguel González-Quintana had telephoned Lázaro from Cuba on November 22, 1999, to advise that Elián and his mother had left Cuba without Juan-Miguel's knowledge, and to watch for their arrival.[3] However, Lázaro González, backed by local Cuban-Americans, soon took the position that the boy should remain in the United States, and not be returned to his father in Cuba. Lázaro's adult daughter, Marisleysis (first cousin once removed to Elián), became the principal caretaker of Elián, and quickly became a well-known television figure. Armando Gutierrez, a local Miami-based Cuban American activist became the family spokesperson and a close friend of the family.

      by vcthree on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:07:58 PM PDT

    •  sorry - I meant to say distant relatives in

      Florida attempted to steal Elian. At the time, I saw as basically little more than a politically motivated kidnapping.

      by alba on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:37:33 PM PDT

  •  Yes - though the father was non-custodial

    The issue was how it was handled, not the underlying facts which a local court should have sorted out.  Democrats used armed force to enforce a treaty provision rather than allow for courts to operate free of presidential power.  In doing so Democrats disprespected the ulitmate sacrifice made by a mother.

    by ProduceMan on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:06:27 PM PDT

•  Reno was right

  I believe that Janet Reno was totally justified in her actions regarding Elian Gonzales. He had been kidnapped by family members when he should have rightly been with his Father

  by Feliks on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:03:23 PM PDT

•  And this has something to do with

  Obama how?

  by PasstheBill on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:04:22 PM PDT

  •  Don't you get it? This is a running mate diary.

    by andydoubtless on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:06:07 PM PDT

    •  Yeah --- Barack will play better among the

      Cubam Americans than will Hillary.  That negates Appalachia in my book if it brings in Florida.

      by ProduceMan on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:08:22 PM PDT

    •  I misread the

      tone completely.  Been a long day.

      by PasstheBill on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:20:08 PM PDT

•  I'll concede the narrow question

  that the repatriaton of Elian Gonzalez probably drove at least 300 Cuban Americans to the polls for George W. Bush or kept some from voting Democrat.

  by andydoubtless on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:09:43 PM PDT

•  As a divorced father who had to fight for

  joint custody, I am strongly offended by this diary.  The Clinton administration was absolutely correct in returning that boy to his father, despite the politics.  The archaic, Miami Cuban zealots were obnoxious, immoral and downright horrible in trying to keep that boy from his own father for their political purposes.  

  They expolited him and then used the issue vengefully to block Miami-Dade's recount in 2000, thus likely defeating Gore.  There was no grey area with Elian Gonzalez- Janet Reno & the Pres. Clinton did the right, moral thing for him & humanity.  And it may have cost Gore the election due to the narrow-minded diehards that acted dishonorably.

  by historyrocks on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:10:29 PM PDT

  •  Yup - this was one of the few times when the

    Clinton administration scored major points with me for doing the morally correct thing and for not pandering to the Cuban American community . .

    by alba on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:40:03 PM PDT

•  If any parent considers the issue from the

  father's position, the resolution of that situation becomes crystal clear.

  by lordcopper on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:12:32 PM PDT

•  Gore cost himself...

  ...by waffling on the issue.

  Gore initially supported Republican legislation to give the boy and his father permanent residence status, but later supported the Administration position. He was attacked for both pandering, and being inconsistent.

  by vcthree on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:13:35 PM PDT

  •  That's the spin stemming from

    so-called "leftists" and the wingnuts attacking him from both sides (Elian case is a classic illustration of how and Nader and Rove both effectively collaborated to bring Gore down). As early as April, Gore was saying the right thing:

    Gore repeated his earlier statement that the ongoing custody battle should be handled in the Florida family court system if relatives on both sides fail to meet.

    "If that cannot be done, then I think it should be decided according to what is in the best interests of the child," Gore added. "Let the decision be made according to the method always used in the United States in situations like that, in a family court."
    ...
    Gore broke his silence on the issue when a participant at Monday's town hall meeting asked about the boy. "Let the decision be made according to the method always used in the United States in situations like that, in a family court," Gore replied.

    "The father's opinion is likely to be decisive as is always the case, if a parent is killed and there's only one surviving parent. But the decision ought to be made according to what is in the best interests of the child."

    by NeuvoLiberal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:24:32 PM PDT

    •  Exactly with the implication being that a court

      should look at Elian's well being in a substantive fashion.  In fact, if Gore had critized Janet Reno for putting treaty obligations above the best interests of the child, he would be president now.

      by ProduceMan on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:31:33 PM PDT

      •  Gore was right,

        more or less, all along. He was thinking in the best interests of Elian. There is nothing particularly wrong with giving green cards to both Elian and his father, provided his father wanted it.

        The real problem was with wingnuts and rabidness on the part of Elian's relatives to keep the child her against the wishes of his father. That Gore NEVER supported.

        I am criticizing both the Naderwing and the wingnuts for spinning what Gore was saying into something it wasn't, something they would tag team to play all through that cycle.

        by NeuvoLiberal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:46:23 PM PDT

•  The point being made is that when it came

  to freedom from totalitarianism, the Clinton administration jumped to treat a child as the chattel of his non custodial father.

  by ProduceMan on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:14:13 PM PDT

  •  chattel??

    Elian is his SON and he had a fundamental human right to raise him.  Using the term 'chattel' is historically & (racially) offensive for obvious reasons.

    I don't deny that Castro also exploited the situation, but that doesn't negate the basic morality of returning a boy home to grow up with his dad.

    by historyrocks on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:16:35 PM PDT

  •  Well, couldn't you make the same argument...

    ...for the Little Havana residents who attempted to exploit Elian for their political purposes, insofar as opposing his return to Cuba as sort of a "F* you" to Fidel Castro?

    by vcthree on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:17:53 PM PDT

  •  Fuck you

    As a father, referring to him as 'chattel' and emphasizing 'non-custodial' is so completely fucking offensive to me.

    I have joint custody of my daughters, but they sleep most nights at my ex-wife's and she claims them on the taxes, which would probably make me 'non-custodial'. And if my ex tried to drag my kids out of the country without my consent? It's called "kidnapping".

    Chattel my ass.

    by ChurchofBruce on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:27:16 PM PDT

  •  Yes - there were people who treated

    Elian as "chattel" but they were Cuban Americans in Florida and Republican politicians who wanted to exploit Elian. The fact that the father was "noncustodial" at the time the mother stole him away does not in any diminish Juan Gonzalez's standing as the boy's father . .

    by alba on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:44:14 PM PDT

•  What about the well being of the child?

  Sure the custodial Mom endangered the life of the child.  But she's gone.

  by ProduceMan on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:21:37 PM PDT

  •  She's gone

    so the only parent left is the father.

    You obviously have a problem with fathers.

    by ChurchofBruce on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:28:09 PM PDT

•  Why do Americans insist on opening old wounds

  and fighting battles of the past, continuously, instead of moving toward the future?  Grudges are counterproductive.

  Wake up to today, not 2000.  Encourage people to move forward with confidence, not constantly revisit the injustices of the past.  

  by keeplaughing on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:47:14 PM PDT

•  Obama should just avoid this subject

  There´s no way anyone but someone in Miami can really understand the nuances of this discussion, and it has absolutely nothing to do with running the United States in 2008.

  In response to this sort of question, Obama should say something like, "I think we should try to put past controversies behind us and focus on what we do today to make Cuba and the rest of the Caribbean and the rest of the world better tomorrow."

  by sclminc on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:59:42 PM PDT